Justice Kennedy Halts "Gay Marriage" in Idaho & Nevada

[frigidweirdo]

As to the obvious, polygamy being the same legal logic as any consenting adult in love argument, there's a new law that maybe Justice Kennedy saw in California that made him rethink this fast-track to anything-goes "marriage":

Is the High Court FINALLY thinking of the children?

California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law a new provision that will allow the state to recognize more than two legal parents for children. New California Law Will Allow Children More Than Two Legal Parents ThinkProgress

Here's a funny video that for some reason I feel belongs on this thread too. Again, this really is the mindset of the liberal left. I've lived at ground-zero before. And this is actually their level of "blind justice". No kidding. Enjoy! What are we moving towards as each new generation of children are raised in ever-more spiralling permissiveness? Just visit California if you want a preview of your future..

Only, she clearly isn't a liberal. I'd have liked this to go on longer and see where she ended up. She could have gone to the universe being a parent.

But you want the states to decide, or you want the feds to decide? Wait, you want BOTH, when it suits you.

If the feds say something you don't like, ie gay marriage, oww, state power.
If the feds say something you like, ie no polygamy, owww, fed power.

 

[Plasmaball]

Oh, OK. So JUST Idaho enjoys sovereignty in-the-interim.

its over, you lost...get used to it

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only Sil is arguing for inequality when it comes to marriage.

You, entitled to your own opinions, are not entitled to your own definitions.

 

[JoeB131]

As to the obvious, polygamy being the same legal logic as any consenting adult in love argument, there's a new law that maybe Justice Kennedy saw in California that made him rethink this fast-track to anything-goes "marriage":

Is the High Court FINALLY thinking of the children?

California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law a new provision that will allow the state to recognize more than two legal parents for children. New California Law Will Allow Children More Than Two Legal Parents ThinkProgress

Here's a funny video that for some reason I feel belongs on this thread too. Again, this really is the mindset of the liberal left. I've lived at ground-zero before. And this is actually their level of "blind justice". No kidding. Enjoy! What are we moving towards as each new generation of children are raised in ever-more spiralling permissiveness? Just visit California if you want a preview of your future..
]

We already have children with more than two parents.

They are called "Stepfathers" and "Stepmothers" when their parents divorce and remarry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is pissed, nothing more, and can do nothing about her angst.

 

[dcraelin]

You do have to wonder if justice Kennedy isn't getting a little irritated by all these appeals court justices misinterpreting the Windsor decision. Which, as I understand it, basically said the states define marriage so the Federal government shouldn't. And then on top of that they are jumping the gun on judicial procedures.

Remember the federal judge who didn't even get the words of the declaration right when she rushed out an opinion to have it ready for Valentines Day.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You do have to wonder if justice Kennedy isn't getting a little irritated by all these appeals court justices misinterpreting the Windsor decision. Which, as I understand it, basically said the states define marriage so the Federal government shouldn't. And then on top of that they are jumping the gun on judicial procedures.

The SCOTUS in Windsor specifically said the States power to enact Civil Marriage laws was limited by Federal Constitutional guarantees, that Windsor did not address whether States could say "No" to SSCM only that if a State says "Yes" that the Federal government had to recognize it.

That was confirmed in Chief Justice Roberts dissenting opinion.



>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

You do have to wonder if justice Kennedy isn't getting a little irritated by all these appeals court justices misinterpreting the Windsor decision. Which, as I understand it, basically said the states define marriage so the Federal government shouldn't. And then on top of that they are jumping the gun on judicial procedures.

The SCOTUS in Windsor specifically said the States power to enact Civil Marriage laws was limited by Federal Constitutional guarantees, that Windsor did not address whether States could say "No" to SSCM only that if a State says "Yes" that the Federal government had to recognize it.
That was confirmed in Chief Justice Roberts dissenting opinion.>>>>

I dont think u r correct in that.....especially not regarding Roberts opinion. As a generic statement everything is subject to Constitutional guarantees.

If the Windsor case was so clear cut, why didnt the SC just go ahead and legalize gay marriage at the time?.....

 

[Skylar]

You do have to wonder if justice Kennedy isn't getting a little irritated by all these appeals court justices misinterpreting the Windsor decision. Which, as I understand it, basically said the states define marriage so the Federal government shouldn't. And then on top of that they are jumping the gun on judicial procedures.

Remember the federal judge who didn't even get the words of the declaration right when she rushed out an opinion to have it ready for Valentines Day.

The Windsor decision was about the contest of Federal definitions vs. the contest of State definitions. In which the Feds could not discriminate against a group the States sought to protect. It was exclusively about the relationship of the Feds to the States....and the Feds to the people.

It never addressed the relationship of the States to the people in the creation of these gay marriage bans themselves. And the idea that the Feds have no say in discriminatory prohibitions against certain types of marriage was blown apart with Loving. Where the Feds stepped in and nullified such discriminatory prohibitions.

There are certain statements by Kennedy that hint strongly that gay marriage bans won't fair well in the SCOTUS:

When New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage, it sought to eliminate inequality; but DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any particular area of federal law. DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code'

United States V. Windsor

And that inequality...is treating gays and lesbians different than straights in terms of marriage. With that recognition, its an uphill battle for gay marriage ban advocates that such bans don't create equal protection under the law violations.

That being said, Kennedy used this phrase 'married under the laws of their State' over and over again, very carefully. Strongly indicating that Kennedy put heavy weight on the State laws. Or at the very least, being careful to limit the scope of the ruling to those 'married under the laws of their State'. At least in my opinion.

Regardless of how Kennedy rules on the constitutionality of the gay marriage bans (, gay marriage will almost certainly be de facto legal in those states with bans anyway. As there is virtually no chance that the USSC is going to overturn two centuries of interstate reciprocity of marriage contracts and allow States to refuse to recognize legal marriages from other states. So with a little bit of 'marriage tourism', any gay couple in a State that bans gay marriage can be married in a State that doesn't.....and their marriage is legally valid throughout the United States.

The only gay folks that would be effected by such bans would be those too poor to travel to another state to get married.

 

[dcraelin]

You do have to wonder if justice Kennedy isn't getting a little irritated by all these appeals court justices misinterpreting the Windsor decision. Which, as I understand it, basically said the states define marriage so the Federal government shouldn't. And then on top of that they are jumping the gun on judicial procedures.

Remember the federal judge who didn't even get the words of the declaration right when she rushed out an opinion to have it ready for Valentines Day.

The Windsor decision was about the contest of Federal definitions vs. the contest of State definitions. In which the Feds could not discriminate against a group the States sought to protect. It was exclusively about the relationship of the Feds to the States....and the Feds to the people.

It never addressed the relationship of the States to the people in the creation of these gay marriage bans themselves. And the idea that the Feds have no say in discriminatory prohibitions against certain types of marriage was blown apart with Loving. Where the Feds stepped in and nullified such discriminatory prohibitions.
There are certain statements by Kennedy that hint strongly that gay marriage bans won't fair well in the SCOTUS:

When New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage, it sought to eliminate inequality; but DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any particular area of federal law. DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code'
United States V. Windsor

And that inequality...is treating gays and lesbians different than straights in terms of marriage. With that recognition, its an uphill battle for gay marriage ban advocates that such bans don't create equal protection under the law violations.
Regardless of how Kennedy rules on the constitutionality of the gay marriage bans (, gay marriage will almost certainly be de facto legal in those states with bans anyway. As there is virtually no chance that the USSC is going to overturn two centuries of interstate reciprocity of marriage contracts and allow States to refuse to recognize legal marriages from other states. So with a little bit of 'marriage tourism', any gay couple in a State that bans gay marriage can be married in a State that doesn't.....and their marriage is legally valid throughout the United States.
The only gay folks that would be effected by such bans would be those too poor to travel to another state to get married.

You may be right on the travel thing but that doesnt address how these appeals courts are justifying,.......from Windsor.....striking down state bans.....
the one line you give, "DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code" is basically an aside and has nothing to do with state law.

 

[Skylar]

You may be right on the travel thing but that doesnt address how these appeals courts are justifying,.......from Windsor.....striking down state bans.....
the one line you give, "DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code" is basically an aside and has nothing to do with state law.

Its an indication that the restrictions on gay marriage were inequality in the law. And its a pretty powerful statement.

As for the specifics of a lower court ruling, we'd have to get more specific into which ruling. As they may differ in which portions of the Windsor ruling they are applying and what legal reasoning they are predicated upon.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You do have to wonder if justice Kennedy isn't getting a little irritated by all these appeals court justices misinterpreting the Windsor decision. Which, as I understand it, basically said the states define marriage so the Federal government shouldn't. And then on top of that they are jumping the gun on judicial procedures.

The SCOTUS in Windsor specifically said the States power to enact Civil Marriage laws was limited by Federal Constitutional guarantees, that Windsor did not address whether States could say "No" to SSCM only that if a State says "Yes" that the Federal government had to recognize it.
That was confirmed in Chief Justice Roberts dissenting opinion.>>>>

I dont think u r correct in that.....especially not regarding Roberts opinion. As a generic statement everything is subject to Constitutional guarantees.

If the Windsor case was so clear cut, why didnt the SC just go ahead and legalize gay marriage at the time?.....

From the opinion of the court, showing that State marriage laws are still limited by the Constitutional guarentees:

"In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-thority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

<<SNIP>>

"Against this background DOMA rejects the long established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next."

<<SNIP>>

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003)."​

From the opinion of the court, showing that the Windsor decision was limited to lawful marriages entered into under State law (i.e. it was about States that said "Yes"):

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.​

From the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, showing that the Windsor did not answer the question of whether States could Constitutionally discriminate against same-sex couples in the realm of Civil Marriage.:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Only Sil is arguing for inequality when it comes to marriage.

You, entitled to your own opinions, are not entitled to your own definitions.

Actually, I didn't travel to all the states as the singular force who voted out gay and polygamy marriage in the 100's of millions [collectively] via the majority opinion at the polls. I had a little help with that...

And before you fire back with "in just the last couple years, attitudes towards gay marriage have radically changed...I'll direct you to this poll and remind you of chic fil a and what almost happened to A&E when they threatened to dump Phil Robertson just last year for speaking out against gay marriage...the facebook page "boycott A&E" got like a million likes in the first day...something like that... Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 155 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...might want to make a mental note of that when you're planning your democratic strategy for wins at the polls this Fall and two from it...

Denying a blind person a driver's license isn't "inequality". It's common sense, and the law. Neither the privelege of driving nor the privilege of marriage are mentioned in the constitution. When it comes to behaviors, you have to have a mention there or you don't qualify. Race is a completely different matter..

 

[OODA_Loop]

You do have to wonder if justice Kennedy isn't getting a little irritated by all these appeals court justices misinterpreting the Windsor decision. Which, as I understand it, basically said the states define marriage so the Federal government shouldn't. And then on top of that they are jumping the gun on judicial procedures.

The SCOTUS in Windsor specifically said the States power to enact Civil Marriage laws was limited by Federal Constitutional guarantees, that Windsor did not address whether States could say "No" to SSCM only that if a State says "Yes" that the Federal government had to recognize it.

That was confirmed in Chief Justice Roberts dissenting opinion.

Affirmed the purview of state power.

The only other Federal avenue is 5th/14th AMND equal protection which "gay" is not a protected class.

 

[Silhouette]

Affirmed the purview of state power.

The only other Federal avenue is 5th/14th AMND equal protection which "gay" is not a protected class.

Thank you! See my last post also.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only Sil is arguing for inequality when it comes to marriage.

You, entitled to your own opinions, are not entitled to your own definitions.

Actually, I didn't travel to all the states as the singular force who voted out gay and polygamy marriage in the 100's of millions [collectively] via the majority opinion at the polls. I had a little help with that...

And before you fire back with "in just the last couple years, attitudes towards gay marriage have radically changed...I'll direct you to this poll and remind you of chic fil a and what almost happened to A&E when they threatened to dump Phil Robertson just last year for speaking out against gay marriage...the facebook page "boycott A&E" got like a million likes in the first day...something like that... Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 155 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...might want to make a mental note of that when you're planning your democratic strategy for wins at the polls this Fall and two from it...

Denying a blind person a driver's license isn't "inequality". It's common sense, and the law. Neither the privelege of driving nor the privilege of marriage are mentioned in the constitution. When it comes to behaviors, you have to have a mention there or you don't qualify. Race is a completely different matter..

False comparison fallacy there, Sil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

State power many not limit civil liberties as defined by SCOTUS review.

States have not had that power since 1868, although the national government permitted them to do so wrongfully.

 

[Silhouette]

State power many not limit civil liberties as defined by SCOTUS review.

States have not had that power since 1868, although the national government permitted them to do so wrongfully.

There is no federal protection in the US constitution for driving or gay marriage. They are both state-regulated priveleges.

If you are telling the truth about gay marriage being so popular these days, just put new measures on the states' ballots and be done with it. But you're not doing that are you? And the reasons is, quite obviously, that you know in reality it isn't as popular as you say it is. Hence all the fuss with "needing federal protection".

 

[WorldWatcher]

You do have to wonder if justice Kennedy isn't getting a little irritated by all these appeals court justices misinterpreting the Windsor decision. Which, as I understand it, basically said the states define marriage so the Federal government shouldn't. And then on top of that they are jumping the gun on judicial procedures.

The SCOTUS in Windsor specifically said the States power to enact Civil Marriage laws was limited by Federal Constitutional guarantees, that Windsor did not address whether States could say "No" to SSCM only that if a State says "Yes" that the Federal government had to recognize it.

That was confirmed in Chief Justice Roberts dissenting opinion.

Affirmed the purview of state power.

The only other Federal avenue is 5th/14th AMND equal protection which "gay" is not a protected class.

1. You left off the limited by the United States Consitution part.

2. Sigh... The 5th Amendment doesn't apply to the States, it applies to the Fedreal government and was the basis for declaring Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. However the 14th Amendment does apply to the States and it's protections have already been recognized for homosexuals in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

1. You left off the limited by the United States Consitution part.

2. Sigh... The 5th Amendment doesn't apply to the States, it applies to the Fedreal government and was the basis for declaring Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. However the 14th Amendment does apply to the States and it's protections have already been recognized for homosexuals in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).



>>>>

2. Romer, which set the stage for Lawrence v Texas was about decriminalizing sodomy. It in no way elevates sodomy or sodomites [people who practice sodomy] to an elevated class status. It simply stopped people who were consenting adults from going to jail for doing it.

Of note is in most states, peforming sodomy on a minor carries a heavier criminal sentence than just plain statutory rape. And that's probably because of the HIV epidemic and the hugely elevated potential of making a child a receptive anal sex object/likely to get HIV. Turns out that sodomy being criminalized is a good idea after all. If the HIV/AIDS epidemic numbers in boys ages 13-24 keeps climbing [virginal boys do not get HIV from gay sex with other virginal boys by and large...they get it from older men], perhaps the SCOTUS will revisit Lawrence v Texas...but just not in the way you're thinking...

Eventually the SCOTUS might want to be seen as the court that protects children first and adults second. But who knows? Maybe the trends where children are seen as objects or chattel, 2nd class citizens [like in Ancient Greece] will be the 21st century's new "vogue" in Supreme Court Rulings?